tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-82354572024-03-05T23:22:09.029+00:00Uncommon ElementsLooking for the facts about the UK graduate job market.
All posts are the opinions of the writer alone!Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.comBlogger88125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-46633182451253092572009-09-17T15:29:00.004+01:002009-09-17T15:43:11.150+01:00Only three quarters of graduates have full time jobs.HESA recently launched their findings from the most recent longitudinal study of graduates, looking at the outcomes of graduates from 2004/5.<br /><br />The press coverage of Longitudinal DLHE was especially interesting, as much of it was actually plain wrong.<br /><br /><a href=": http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article6820130.ece">This piece</a>, from the Times, is typical.<br /><br />There are some contentious statements. “According to figures suggesting that a bachelor’s qualification alone is no longer a passport to a well paid job” is sufficiently a cliché that the same words (substituting ‘degree’ for ‘bachelor’s’) come up as appearing in the Times at regular intervals since 2004. It also suggests that at some point a degree was a “passport to a well paid job”. Setting aside that this phrase is essentially meaningless, I take it to mean that the writer feels that at some point, getting a degree guaranteed the holder a “good” job. Well, it never has and it never will.<br /><br />That’s not the worst of it. The Times, the Telegraph and the Guardian all reported that ‘a quarter of all graduates were not in full time jobs’. This is actually not true. What actually happened is that the data contains a series of categories, including people who were in full-time employment, people who were in part time employment, people who were combining work and study, people who were in further study, and so on.<br /><br />Now, some of (in fact many of) those people who were combining work and study were also working full time. But the papers all didn’t realize that – or didn’t mention it. Maybe it’s because it was on the first line of the press release?<br /><br />They also, shall we say, selectively reported the data in such a way as to create a negative impression. Would you say people studying for a PhD represented positive or negative outcomes for universities? The headlines about ‘full time employment’ suggest it’s negative. <br /><br />That’s even before you get to the question of whether people working part time actually want to work part time or not. Some might. Some might not. For those who want a full time job, it is not good. For some who might be combining work with family life (don't forget that 'part time' means 'less than 30 hours a week' - or, in other words, anyone working less than 5 days a week), it's not. <br /><br />My wife works part time. She's a graduate. It's not because of educational failure, it's because we have an 11 month old machine for throwing books on the floor that is dressed as a little girl. Lots of graduates could actually have families - last year, a quarter of graduates were over 25 on graduation, and 15% were over 30.<br /><br />Buried in the press stories was the fact that in a recession, three and a half years after graduating, 2.6% of the 2004/5 graduating cohort were unemployed.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-2971842272583568962009-08-27T11:24:00.002+01:002009-08-27T11:27:04.133+01:00Fabulous Triumphant ReturnUncommon Elements returns in September.<br /><br />The pressure of new fatherhood, and my own work requirements have meant I had to go on unplanned hiatus, but with higher education becoming more prominent, it's time, not just to resurrect this blog, but to try to publicise it a little.<br /><br />It'll be much the same, only, hopefully, a little more frequent.<br /><br />Stick around.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-68101472585836661322009-03-06T08:55:00.004+00:002009-03-06T09:02:39.978+00:00Jeff Randall Gets It WrongIf someone like Randall can't even get simple HE policy right, then what chance for other commentators.<br /><br />In today's Telegraph, Randall has an entertaining knockabout pop at education policy, and comes out with the depressingly common fallacy:<br /><br /><blockquote>Yet Labour clings to its ludicrous target of driving 50 per cent of British school-leavers into university</blockquote><br /><br />Setting aside whether an HE participation target is 'ludicrous' or not, as any fule kno, that's not the policy.<br /><br />Once again with feeling, <br /><br />The policy is not to <span style="font-style:italic;">'drive 50% of school leavers into university'. </span><br /><br />It's for 50% of <span style="font-weight:bold;">18 to 30 year olds</span> to have had <span style="font-weight:bold;">some experience of higher education</span>.<br /><br />Jeff Randall is an experienced and influential journalist, and here he is reciting a popular, simple factual error that any graduate could have researched in a couple of minutes.<br /><br />Yes, the standard of critiques of education standards remains depressingly low.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-63931189632176060262009-01-12T15:29:00.004+00:002009-01-12T15:40:40.739+00:00InternshipsThe <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4210088/National-intern-scheme-to-help-graduates-through-the-recession.html">National Internship Scheme</a> is the name of the proposal for companies to offer three month internships to graduates having trouble in the labour market this summer.<br /><br />As yet, details are a bit scanty. The companies named actually already offer internships. Does this mean that they'll be paid to do what they were going to do already, or will they add more interns?<br /><br />Is three months long enough for graduates to gain useful skills (I think so, but will the employment market)?<br /><br />What about other, established internship schemes? Will they be getting money? Who will administer these schemes, and how will students get onto them? Will it be limited to certain institutions (either purposely or effectively)?<br /><br />And when the recession is over, will the companies then start to claim they can't offer internships without public money? This is the question that bothers me.<br /><br />That said, I'm glad that John Denham and his departmnet are actually thinking about the situation that students will find themselves in and trying to do something about it. Let's hope they've got this right and the graduates benefit.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-26333436003618644762009-01-10T15:42:00.000+00:002009-01-10T15:44:00.952+00:00And finally (for today)Stuff on internships for later.<br /><br />Just a note about the <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/4210088/National-intern-scheme-to-help-graduates-through-the-recession.html">Telegraph's coverage</a> of the internship idea: 400,000 people get HE qualifications of some kind or other in a given year. About 270,000 people will get first degrees, and I'm <i>sure</i> the Telegraph didn't mean to imply anything else.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-66187553630867793022009-01-10T15:37:00.000+00:002009-01-10T15:41:14.508+00:00...and there's moreYou wait months for a decent set of posts here and then a shed-load come all at once.<br /><br />One point made by one of the arts and social scientist graduates interviewed for the Guardian is worth bringing up.<br /><br />An unexpected, but entirely logical consequence of recession is that students will be finding it increasingly difficult to find the term-time employment they need to fund their studies. That's something that needs to be very seriously considered by policy-makers and institutions and I suspect it was never really taken into account when fees were set. It does suggest to me that the chance of the cap on fees being raised in the near future is pretty small. <br /><br />What I think it will mean is that not only will loan repayments fall as fewer graduates earn the money required to pay them back, but more students will also drop out because they can't afford to pay their way. What's to be done about that?Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-66445358320566843412009-01-10T15:33:00.003+00:002009-01-10T15:44:29.097+00:00Generation Crunch (Slight Return)The supplementary article has some good points and a lot of opinion which may or may not be correct, but there is one quote which is, to put it mildly, contentious.<br /><br /><blockquote><br />The expansion of higher education, driven by the government's target to put 50% of young people into it, has happened too quickly for the labour market. </blockquote><br /><br />Oh, <i>has</i> it? Unfortunately for this exciting assertion, the facts and research into the field say otherwise, as documented ad nauseam by this blog. There is a more subtle point, though, which is iterated by <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/staff/person.asp?id=958">Professor Peter Dolton.</a><br /><br /><blockquote>"When you have rising graduate unemployment, the effects are felt worst by graduates of non-vocational subjects and graduates from less prestigious universities. That's going to get even worse in recession."</blockquote><br /><br />That's true. The big rise in university numbers has come through non-vocational qualifications which will be hit hard by the coming recruitment downturn. The kind of jobs which will be less in evidence will be many of those that require a degree, but with no particular discipline preference. These were perfect for the likes of the large number of psychologists and similar subjects who are leaving university. It will be much harder for them, and we need to help them.<br /><br />But Dolton is then attributed as saying this: <blockquote>According to Dolton, the government's target of getting 50% of adults into higher education was based on influential research looking at adult earnings over an entire career.</blockquote><br /><br />I sincerely hope he didn't say that, because it's rubbish. I suspect he didn't say that at all. Maybe the Government's conviction about earnings (and hence their evidence for the introduction of tuition fees and the level at which they should be set) was influenced by this research, but anecdotally the 50% target was not set in that way (I'm not going into what I know and how I know it, but really, it doesn't seem to have been that rigorous), and the imperative for getting more people into HE comes from a series of reports about the future structure of the labour market, the most recent of which is Leitch - emphatically not a piece of work dealing with the financial impact of degrees on future earnings. <br /><br />Unless Dolton is arguing that we need a lower proportion of the population with degrees than comparable economies (and I doubt he is), I think he's actually giving evidence about something else. His later quotes suggest that. <a href="http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=dolton+rate+of+return+degree&hl=en&lr=&scoring=r&as_ylo=2004">Dolton and Vignoles do a lot of research on rates of return</a> and know their stuff (certainly better than I do), and I think it is now clear that the rate of returns on degrees were oversold in the 90s, but that does not mean that fewer people should be going to university as that is a different argument.<br /><br />It is left to <a href="http://www.demos.co.uk/people/richardreeves">Richard Reeves</a> to make the point. A degree is still going to be important in this labour market, because the simple fact is that the more skills you have, the better off you will be when it comes to looking for work.<br /><br />These articles do serve one purpose - they warn that the job market is difficult and if it prompts students to start applying now, all the better. But if it puts people off applying for jobs when they are actually there then you have to question what good these pieces did. <br /><br />It would not have been difficult to point out that the industries most seriously affected are a fraction of the total employment market. <br /><br />It would not have been difficult to point out that most people stress that there are still jobs available, but that it might not be as easy to access them. <br /><br />It would not have been hard to find people who graduated in the last recession (HELLO! I'M HERE!) to tell how they fared during the recession (badly - that's why I'm worried now) and afterwards (not so badly).<br /><br />The problem is that, as I pointed out below, there are actually two separate but related problems which have been conflated as one. The first is the likely shortage of jobs next summer. This is serious and all that we can do is try to keep as aware of what is (or isn't) happening.<br /><br />The second is the profound lack of confidence that students have in the employment market, and that isn't directly related to the number of jobs that are available, it's related to the number of jobs that they think are available. We can, and we have to, work on that - not by pretending all is well in Happy Sunshine Land, but by telling students about those opportunities that still exist and assuring them that their years of effort have not been for nothing. That's just got a bit harder.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-55250888420327831922009-01-10T10:57:00.008+00:002009-01-10T15:45:12.016+00:00Generation Crunch (Part One)It's always fun when journalists think they've coined a phrase.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/10/graduate-employment-crisis-rescue-package">These pieces</a> <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/jan/10/graduate-careers-crisis-unemployment-recession">in the Guardian</a> were inevitable at some point. <br /><br />The articles produce a mix of emotions. There's little in there that's not true. But it takes many of the classic features of a scare story; the handful of case studies meant to represent the whole (note: not a one has a science, maths or technology-related degree); the stats used in their simplest sense without qualifiers; the quotes from experts which amount to opinion and might not chime with reality. And the whole thing put together will do little to help students looking for work this year. It will frighten them.<br /><br />There is no doubt that this year will be grim for new graduates - nobody is saying anything differently. But will it actually be worse than 2002/3, when recruitment of IT graduates fell sharply and suddenly one of the most popular degrees in the country had unemployment rates over 10% - at the same time that Enron went under and took the huge graduate recruiter Arthur Andersen with it? It could - and actually, it probably will - but we are not sure because things do have to be a lot worse than last year and as yet they do not appear to be. That's all we can say on the issue. We have to deal with what we actually know as - especially in this climate - conjecture can be proven wrong almost immediately.<br /><br />Let's tackle some of the points raised in the article.<br /><br />The internship scheme is an admission by the Government that there is an issue. An actual official scheme to help graduates in recession is something new. It may not work if, after the internship has finished, we're still in downturn. But it does show that people are not sitting idly by and letting this year's cohort (not 'a generation', by the way) rot. I have reservations that I'll come to in another post, because this one is going to be mammoth.<br /><br />David Blanchflower talks about the unemployment figures for young people. They are definitely scary. What he does not mention at any point is what proportion of those unemployed were graduates. Nor does the article. We cannot infer anything from those figures other than the fact that a lot of young people have lost their jobs. <br /><br />We do know that we want to keep bouts of unemployment for graduates short (6 months maximum), because long-term unemployment has serious effects on careers. Blanchflower is correct there as well, and we have to give serious thought to helping graduates who are out of work for a while and how we do that.<br /><br />Now, the good bit:<blockquote> Evidence of the extent of the downturn in graduate recruitment uncovered by the Guardian includes:</blockquote><br /><br /><blockquote>• Major companies have narrowed their search for graduates to five elite universities as they cut recruitment numbers.</blockquote><br /><br />Who, and how many? We know that some finance companies are doing this - but the lack of figures given here is a worry. Is it 5? Is it 500?<br /><blockquote>• The organisers of the annual graduate recruitment "milk round" say jobs in finance and retail are drying up. Even where companies are recruiting, vacancies will not necessarily last until summer as the economic slump worsens.</blockquote><br />Nothing controversial here. We've been telling people this for months. <br /><blockquote>• The management consultancy KPMG, seen as a recruitment barometer, says its 600 graduate entry jobs are nearly all taken months ahead of schedule as students scramble for the top jobs.</blockquote><br />Graduates are planning ahead. That's good - although not good if you're not one of them. To be honest, I'd hope that most savvy graduates would have made some plans by now. 600 jobs is quite a lot, by the way.<br /><blockquote>• Manchester University careers service, the largest outside London, has seen the number of recruitment adverts taken out with its careers service tail off drastically.</blockquote><br />Elizabeth's comment on the previous article tells you all you need to know about how happy she is that a key fact - that they still have more ads than they did in 2002/3 - has been omitted.<br /><blockquote>• Careers service managers have been inundated with desperate students who don't know what to do when they graduate because their plans are in tatters.</blockquote><br />I would like to see footfall figures for careers services over the last 3 months - they'll make very interesting reading. Imperial College have had a lot of enquiries from graduates who wanted to go into finance industry jobs and now think that they can't. That's a worry as many of those jobs are likely to still exist and an Imperial College degree will be a pretty good passport to many of them. <br /><blockquote>• The slump in graduate jobs threatens unemployment for people with lower or no qualifications as graduates turn their sights on non-graduate vacancies.</blockquote><br />This is very true, and actually contradicts one of the key messages from the Guardian piece. Because they're implying that it wasn't worth it for a lot of these students to go to university because they won't get jobs. Except now it seems (as will be the case), that they're still better off than people who didn't go to university because they'll be getting their jobs instead.<br /><br />(Continued in part 2. Good grief, two parts)Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-17124610664287034432009-01-08T16:14:00.004+00:002009-01-08T16:48:11.471+00:00There is a whole generation of graduates and young professionals whose chances of finding a foot on the ladder have rarely looked more bleakI haven't really followed Dan Robert's business blog on the Guardian, but I might if this is an example of the treats on offer. I'm not linking to the piece, as it's rubbish, but that doesn't mean I can't tackle the contents.<br /><br />We have, and will, be seeing much more of this kind of assertion in future, and I think it's time to give it the respect it's due.<br /><br /><blockquote><p>There is a whole generation of graduates and young professionals whose chances of finding a foot on the ladder have rarely looked more bleak.<br /></p></blockquote><br /><br />Employment ladder, that is.<br /><br />Well, you really can't say that at the moment, I'm afraid. <br /><br />As <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/nov/04/students-recession">documented</a> by Paul Redmond (and as the head of careers at Liverpool University he ought to know), many employers, even in the finance industry, are still aiming to recruit for fear that when the recovery comes around they'll have nobody in place to capitalise. <br /><br /><a href="http://manchesterpgcareers.wordpress.com/2009/01/05/job-vacancies-new-year-update/">Elizabeth Wilkinson </a>is showing that job ads for her service are down, yes, but not as seriously as they were in that dim and distant memory - er, 2003.<br /><br />So things are grim, but <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/7817146.stm">not</a> <a href="http://www.co-operative.coop/corporate/press/news/CHRISTMAS-TRADING-STATEMENT-FROM-THE-CO-OPERATIVE-GROUP/">unrelievedly</a> <a href="http://www.johnlewispartnership.co.uk/Display.aspx?MasterId=2c9c4322-ac1d-4728-833d-7edc70ac065e&NavigationId=553">so</a> (note that all three companies covered there are graduate recruiters).<br /><br />So whilst recognising that this year is likely to be substantially tougher for new graduates than the recent past, we also have to be careful not to get hyperbolic as poor Dan has done. Because there's another problem.<br /><br />It seems that reports like this are genuinely affecting the perceptions of graduates and young people. And so we hear of people who are not bothering to look for jobs because there can't possibly be any available.<br />At the moment we could be in the baffling position of having a cohort of graduates who don't bother to apply for jobs which are actually there because they believe "experts" who tell them that they are not. <br /><br />Let's be honest. Things are rough, much rougher than they have been for a few years. But if by 'rarely looked more bleak' you mean 'nearly as bad as they were earlier in the decade, when they were nowhere near as bad as 10 years before that', then yes, your point stands. Otherwise, well, no.<br /><br />That's before we start to address the point that the sectors most affected employ only a small proportion of graduates every year, but are accorded significance out of proportion. If you add together <b>all</b> graduates from 2006/7 who went to work in all areas of manufacturing, retail, hotel and leisure (because that's having a hard time too) and the finance industry it comes to 19.3% of the total number of graduates from 2008. And it goes up to 30% if you include everyone who is in a business support sector - they're not likely to be so affected but let's include them anyway. <br /><br />For graduate unemployment rates to hit the levels of the early 90's recession, we need the number of graduates out of work to increase nearly three-fold. Now, if the entire retail industry and finance industry en masse decided not to hire any graduates at all this year, that would do it, but unless that happens, let's just say 'it might be the toughest labour market for graduates for a decade'. <br /><br />In order for the unemployment rate to get above the levels in 2002/3, about 15,500 graduates from 2008/9 need to be out of work when they graduate. Last year, it was 11,800, so that's a little more likely.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-30040393619968771082008-12-10T17:07:00.002+00:002008-12-10T17:27:13.950+00:00The Thrift ReviewAs reported <a href="http://uncommonelements.blogspot.com/2008/11/researcher-brain-drain.html">many hundreds of years ago</a> the <a href="http://www.dius.gov.uk/policy/documents/Nigel%20Thrift%20contribution%20to%20HE%20Debate.pdf">Thrift Review</a> is now out.<br /><br />It tries to address the issues that mean that many promising young graduates do not see research careers as attractive. Whilst the report concentrates on academia, Thrift also recognises that some of these issues are not unique to academic careers but also apply to research careers in the private and third sectors.<br /><br />The UK lags behind many other countries, and behind the OECD average for the number of researchers per thousand population. Other competitor economies have expanded their researcher base far quicker than the UK over the last 20 years. This lack of movement may render the UK’s research base vulnerable in future if we continue to fall behind. Demographic challenges - well covered in the report - make us even more vulnerable. There is a very interesting section on widening participation that is unfortunately hampered by a lack of clear evidence, but which ought to prompt urgent further investigation.<br /><br /><br />But let us get on to the more substantial part of the report. Section 2.3.1 is titled ‘The Postdoctoral Experience’, and this is where the insecurity and lack of clear structure and transparency that surrounds postdoctoral researchers is examined. Thrift quotes Janet Metcalfe of <a href="http://www.vitae.ac.uk">Vitae</a>, who summarises the issue in one characteristically pithy phrase: <blockquote>“...there is still a need for honesty and openness about the likelihood of ‘success’ for individuals in academic research.”</blockquote> He also notes, correctly, that there is a serious issue of morale as many postdoctoral researchers feel insecure, unconsulted and undervalued. There is a sober admission that the apparent move away from fixed term contracts to open-ended ones by many universities has merely led to the routine use of redundancy. But again any concrete suggestions about what could be done and what implications this has are limited and disappointing.<br /><br />Unfortunately, the Review produces the traditional summary for any Review of this kind, and one that almost could be written before we start: things are broadly good, we could improve, there are lots of initiatives that need bringing together, more research needs to be done.<br /><br />Whilst this may be largely true, such a predictable conclusion is disappointing given some of the rather serious problems that exist with careers for young researchers. Particularly disappointing given the remit of the Review, is the lack of recommendations directly addressing the lack of attractiveness of research careers to young researchers.<br /><br />The Review has a sense of a lost opportunity. It does a good job of drawing together existing work – although there is not a lot of it, and it has been done by a rather narrow group of people and is consequently well known by those involved in the area.<br /><br />It notes that there are a series of issues but it seems to be suggesting that much of it is under control (some is, but not the most serious), and that more research is needed elsewhere (it is, but Rome burns in the meantime). This author appreciates the constraints of a thoughtful academic working without much of the information he might like and under a narrow remit, but feels that this Review could have been bolder and could have produced a less predictable conclusion. But Thrift does shine some lights on areas that have, even in an under-researched field, received less attention, and for this he ought to be commended.<br /><br />It remains to be seen what effect this Review will actually have. I remain guardedly optimistic but feel that whilst the conditions that have led to serious issues of morale amongst many postdoctoral researchers persist, then we will continue to see a drop in the proportion of researchers in the population, and the UK research base will continue to be eroded. This author hopes he is wrong.<br /><br />A reader from DIUS (yes!) would like to point out to anyone who would like to discuss the issues in the report that there is a <a href="http://hedebate.jiscinvolve.org/research-careers/">blog available </a>to leave your thoughts. I urge everyone to do so.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-44995509259732164942008-11-05T14:28:00.002+00:002008-11-05T14:34:34.453+00:00How to mislead by selectively telling the truthThe headline: <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2008/nov/03/degree-choice-recession">Downturn causes students unease over degree choice</a>.<br /><br />The data: 8% of a sample of 357 final year students "wish they'd chosen a different degree given the current economic climate". 4% of a sample of 1,041 students of all years.<br /><br />If this headline were honest, it would be 'Downturn causes small minority of students unease over degree choice. More than 90% still happy.'<br /><br />Don't mess with statistics.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-80663931817548235962008-11-05T13:42:00.002+00:002008-11-05T14:03:17.550+00:00Researcher Brain DrainThere's a report coming out soon looking at a downturn in the number of young researchers entering academia. The <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/the-brain-drain-leaving-britain-vulnerable-977892.html">Independent provides an interview</a> with the author, <a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/services/vco/vc/">Nigel Thrift</a> of Warwick University.<br /><br />This report will make interesting reading when it emerges, but judging by the interview it may continue to indulge the wishful blindness that the HE sector indulges in when it considers postdoctoral careers. The simple fact is that the HE sector treats its researchers poorly, is not honest about their career prospects and is reluctant to give them job security. The work of <a href="http://www.vitae.ac.uk/">Vitae</a> is trying to alleviate this, but if you tell the best-educated young people that they will have to work several short-term, temporary contracts in order to get a 20% chance of a permanent post - and that 80% of them will be looking for a new career in their 30s if they persist - then it is unsurprising that many will be reluctant to take that on. Instead, they'll leave university now under their own steam and take their chances rather than have that choice forced on them several years and several stressful contracts down the line.<br /><br />In fact, I suspect that an economic downturn will mean more researchers staying on because of a reduction in opportunities outside university. Hopefully the sector will start to treat the researchers it needs to keep afloat a little better.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-48791481679380823682008-10-30T11:16:00.012+00:002008-10-30T12:28:02.711+00:00Graduate Meltdown!Well, you'd think so, wouldn't you? All kinds of doomy predictions about hordes of unemployed graduates (not borne out by stats so far) are being brought out.<br /><br />But let's take a look at what is actually happening.<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh2rDDXELTRr-8ir8m9Dz78EkJ4EZ3nnJSd4yHyz89Kz0_eRBm-28o5z-3viXk0vwg0anb7RjOdbMIVKsQB12AoLxq6OadGiI-VNRTmKS4AcGhgE0cg31WbGWe9LrQCoZXc4BN-g/s1600-h/2007.JPG"><img id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5262922660749101842" style="FLOAT: right; MARGIN: 0px 0px 10px 10px; WIDTH: 320px; CURSOR: hand; HEIGHT: 197px" alt="" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgh2rDDXELTRr-8ir8m9Dz78EkJ4EZ3nnJSd4yHyz89Kz0_eRBm-28o5z-3viXk0vwg0anb7RjOdbMIVKsQB12AoLxq6OadGiI-VNRTmKS4AcGhgE0cg31WbGWe9LrQCoZXc4BN-g/s320/2007.JPG" border="0" /></a> In 2007, when the economy was still booming, 6% of new graduates from 2005/6 were unemployed six months after graduating, as you can see on the chart to the right. That was actually a pretty reasonable year, so it makes a good guide to how things looked when the economy was going well.<br /><br />Even at this point, only 8.1% of those graduates who were working were actually in jobs in business and finance, and many of them were not in banks or funding institutions - they were employed as accountants and auditors in companies, or as management consultants.<br /><br />This is not a great situation for graduate employment, by any stretch. But nor is it meltdown. It isn't fun if you wanted to be a London-based banker. But only a small minority of graduates did in the first place, and it is irresponsible to worry people with a big life change ahead of them by presenting the plight of a small minority of graduates as typical of all of them.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-58349831239151688592008-07-07T14:08:00.002+01:002008-07-07T14:25:07.062+01:00Great HE MythsAha, that's what daylight looks like! As I crawl out from under a huge project, I urge any readers to take a look at <a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/columnist/story/0,,2289553,00.html">this great piece by John Sutherland</a>, looking at myths about higher education.<br /><br />The argument in 'Tryth 3' is slighly facile with a kind of blithe assumption it's easy to earn £100k a year if you feel like it, and I'm not convinced by his apparent equivocation on plagiarism (although I think it's an interesting point). <br /><br />But overall, the article makes a very good case that much of the things people 'know' about HE are, essentially myths. <br />Standards have not self-evidently fallen. Some subjects are not self-evidently 'easier'. A degree has value and is not pointless.<br /><br />More of this kind of article, please, and less <a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2289485,00.html">deliberately misleading, agenda-driven headlines</a> to articles that don't match the contents.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-26064216136857283912008-04-30T16:11:00.004+01:002008-04-30T16:41:28.720+01:00Unfashionable Opinions AhoyOur MPs are great.<br /><br />It's hard to imagine a more unfashionable opinion, but it becomes much easier to justify when you read <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmdius/215/21502.htm">today's report</a> from the <a href="http://www.parliament.uk/parliamentary_committees/ius.cfm">Innovations, Universities and Skills committee</a> which looks at the work of DIUS and the Research Councils, and concentrates on the <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/manchester/7281176.stm">debacle </a>of the <a href="http://www.scitech.ac.uk/">STFC's</a> <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7274956.stm">science funding</a>.<br /><br />The report makes some excellent statements, but essentially, it berates the Government for forgetting the Haldane Principle, which is "<blockquote>named after Richard Burdon Haldane, the 1st Viscount of Haldane, who chaired a committee in 1918 which produced a report (known as the <a href="http://ia340927.us.archive.org/0/items/reportofmachiner00greaiala/reportofmachiner00greaiala.pdf">Haldane Report</a>) that recommended that non-departmental-specific research should be managed by scientists through 'Research Councils'"</blockquote><br /><br />I will quote the conclusion to the section on the STFC in full<br /><br /><blockquote>STFC's problems have their roots in the size of the CSR07 settlement and the legacy of bringing CCLRC and PPARC together, but they have been exacerbated by a poorly conceived delivery plan, lamentable communication and poor leadership, as well as major senior management misjudgements. Substantial and urgent changes are now needed in the way in which the Council is run in order to restore confidence and to give it the leadership it desperately needs and has so far failed properly to receive. This raises serious questions about the role and performance of the Chief Executive, especially his ability to retain the confidence of the scientific community as well as to carry through the necessary changes outlined here. </blockquote><br /><br />Let's hope that some lessons are learnt from this and UK science suffers no lasting damage. That the IUS Committee have been so forceful gives me hope.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-77363502759317323102008-04-01T14:07:00.004+01:002008-04-01T14:24:21.980+01:00ONS Independence Day (Guaranteed Rickroll Free)Here at the sober coal face of graduate employment research, we do not do seasonal levity.<br /><br />Today sees the launch of the <a href="http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/">UK Statistics Authority</a>, the body charged with the implementation of the <a href="http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2007/ukpga_20070018_en_1">Statistics and Registration Service Act 2007</a> (well, <em>someone</em> might want to read it. We're all about sourcing here.)<br /><br />Or, in other words, the body who now oversee the <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/default.asp">Office of National Statistics</a>, who are no longer under direct ministerial control. The whole stats function for the UK now reports to Parliament. <br /><br />Here's <a href="http://www.statisticsauthority.gov.uk/news/announcements/announcing-the-new-uk-statistics-authority-website/index.html">the statement</a>.<br /><br />The ONS website looks much the same, though. <br /><br />While we're here, let's quickly examine <a href="http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000780/sfrdius02-2008.pdf">the report</a> from Friday participation rates which has excited a little press comment.<br /><br />It's the same one that happens every year in which the Government admits they're not going to get 50% of young people into university any time soon, and the Press and Opposition pretend that they're surprised and haven't spent a lot of time and effort trying to make sure that the target isn't met. All good slapstick fun.<br /><br />Anyway, in 2006/7, we actually sent fewer young people between 18/30 to university as a proportion of the total population - 40% - than in the previous year. That will no doubt please some people, but isn't actually great news for the long-term health of the economy, as the <a href="http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/leitch_review/review_leitch_index.cfm">Leitch Report</a> made clear. <br /><br />This is slightly worrying, and we cannot compete globally with a workforce that is becoming less well educated.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-12096606953781311932008-03-19T12:20:00.003+00:002008-03-19T12:58:51.996+00:00Some nurses might not get jobs straight away, say Lib Dems<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/7304537.stm">A hugely enjoyable story</a> on the BBC today about nursing.<br /><br />The Lib Dems appear to have discovered HESA's student destination information and have used it to find out that some people who study nursing don't actually become nurses straight away.<br /><br /><blockquote>In 2005/06, 770 nursing and midwifery graduates did not have a NHS post compared with just over 400 in 2002/03, latest figures show. </blockquote><br /><br />As the article points out somewhat further down the page,<br /><br /><blockquote>The figures were based on more than 11,000 graduates in 2005/06 up from around 9,000 in 2002/03</blockquote><br /><br />No, let's be properly accurate about this. In 2005/6, there were 11,225 nursing and midwifery graduates from the UK, of which 8,820 actually replied to the survey.<br /><br />770 graduates not entering NHS nursing is 8.7% (I'm reporting rounded figures as I am a responsible data user).<br /><br />In 2002/3, there were 8,640 (not 'around 9,000', as the article claims) nursing graduates from the UK, of whom 6,920 responded to the survey. 440 graduates not entering the NHS is 6.4% - so there's definitely a proportionate increase.<br /><br />So let's take a look at what the nurses not doing nursing are actually doing. <br /><br />Well, 1.9% were unemployed. That's not a lot, but it's more than 4 years ago, when 0.7% were unemployed six months after graduating. <br /><br />Of those who weren't unemployed and were working, what were they doing? Well, actually, the most common job was management, which suggests that these nurses were not settling for second best. Other popular roles included positions in housing and welfare and in drug support. There wasn't a great deal of employment in things like supermarkets and call centres - you can be sure the Lib Dems would have mentioned it if there was.<br /><br />It is not accurate, as the Lib Dems have done, to imply that all of those nurses who are not working in the NHS six months after graduating have been forced into that position.<br /><br />There is also a regional pattern to both unemployment and non-NHS employment. Some regions see graduates rather more likely to be unemployed and not employed as NHS nurses. Unemployment rates by domicile range from 0.3% for nurses from Northern Ireland, to 3.7% for those from London. Nurses are more likely than most graduates to be female, to be mature, and to study and work in their home region. There are areas, as in teaching, where there are more positions available than others.<br /><br />What's interesting about this story is the way the Lib Dems seem to be trying to suggest that they've uncovered some buried scandal. The BBC actually say, <em>"Figures obtained by the Liberal Democrats"</em>, as if they had to interrogate a mandarin. <br />Well, only as much as it would have taken 10 minutes with a publicly available dataset to produce the data, as I just did. Or they could have got most of it from <a href="http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/What_do_graduates_do__2008/charts_and_tables_pages/p!eaLjjjF?subject_id=33">here</a>. This wasn't a hard piece of work to produce. <br /><br />What does it <em>actually</em> tell us? Well, undeniably, proportionally more nurses than 4 years ago are not in the NHS six months after graduation (although, more <em>actual</em> nurses are). However, we are training a lot more. And should they all being going into the NHS? <br /><br />Some of these nurses do want to go into the NHS and can't - we know that, it causes them distress and is something that should be tackled. <br /><br />Some want to go into the NHS, there may be positions available but not where they want to work, or in the kind of nursing job they want to do. That's a murkier issue.<br /><br />And some train as nurses and don't go into the NHS because they change their minds during their courses, or because they get another offer they prefer. That doesn't mean that they don't ever come back, or that their course was a waste of time.<br /><br />The Lib Dems have not done anything to distinguish between these three cases and treated them all as equally bad. That's not helpful, and it's not useful. They would have been much better identifying those graduates for whom nursing courses have definitely not brought about the outcome they wanted and working out why. But that would have been hard and taken longer. 10 minutes with a spreadsheet has got them a BBC headline. Well done Norman Lamb.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-69868886266179090052008-03-18T10:21:00.002+00:002008-03-18T10:27:13.442+00:00STEM education open forumThe Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) has opened a <a href="http://www.stemforum.org.uk/home">new consultation</a> for those interested in STEM education to share ideas and to contribute to the agenda. <br /><br />It's also got a lot of useful links to allow readers to see what's going on in science education. It's obviously dominated by pre-HE information at the moment, but is designed to be for all levels. It's an interesting step - let's see how it works. <br /><br />And let's start by guaranteeing the future of Jodrell Bank.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-83314698962175175962008-03-17T14:44:00.002+00:002008-03-17T15:07:21.179+00:00Tracking the Future with FuturetrackHas it really been that long? Back from a hell of sciatica and NDAs just as spring approaches. <br /><br />Jessica Shepherd has written a <a href="http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/mortarboard/2008/03/do_students_choose_subjects_fo.html">piece in the Guardian</a> about the <a href="http://futuretrack.ac.uk/">Futuretrack</a> research being run by the <a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier">Institute of Employment Research</a> at Warwick, as funded by <a href="http://www.hecsu.ac.uk">HECSU</a>. <br /><br />Obviously, I have an interest, so let's get that out of the way.<br /><br />Futuretrack is a hugely significant project. It is designed to examine the way that students make their decisions about their courses and careers, the factors that influence them and the way that they change as students progress. It's managed to get over 130,000 students to reply, which is huge for a qualitative survey and will have given rise to a staggeringly large dataset packed with fascinating information.<br /><br />The first report is now out and Jessica's article draws on that to examine the motivations behind course choices. Many students - 38% of this large cohort - still do study their subject for the love of it, and it's easier to motivate yourself for a course you're interested in. <br /><br />There is a wealth more information to come from this research, so keep an eye out.Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-72800630807441058812007-12-20T13:46:00.000+00:002007-12-20T14:12:00.328+00:00Graduate employment in 2007Well, since it got practically no press coverage, time to talk a little about <a href="http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/What_do_graduates_do__2008/p!eLaFFee">'What Do Graduates Do?'</a><br /><br /><a href="http://www.hecsu.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Research_reports/What_Do_Graduates_Do__2008/p!elkeXXf">This </a>is the annual review of the outcomes for last year's graduates, six months after they leave university, and does a valuable service in telling us things like how the graduate employment market looked, distribution of people completing degrees, and whether people are getting jobs - or going onto further study - or not.<br /><br />2006 graduates actually entered a pretty good job market, with <a href="http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/What_do_graduates_do__2008/charts_and_tables_pages/p!eaLjjjF;jsessionid=a63087252e0f11291911?subject_id=1">6% unemployed</a> - a low proportion, in historic terms, and the lowest since 2001 (an anomalous year as it transpired), and about two thirds getting jobs at degree level (the <a href="http://www2.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/ier/research/completed/7yrs2/rp6.pdf">classifications for what actually constitutes a graduate job</a> are currently being re-examined as the labour market is not static). <br /><br />Since these classifications were only really firmed up in the last few years, there is not a great body of historical evidence for graduate-level job participation, but what we do have suggests that last year was pretty good on that front as well.<br /><br />There are plenty more details at the site, so take a look if you're interested.<br /><br />As for the coming year? Well, I am not a big fan of futurology, but I don't expect things to be as favourable for graduates from 2007 or 2008. The graduate employment market is one of the first to be affected by even a small downturn in the economy, and a range of issues, such as the banking problems over the last few months, to concerns over funding cuts for physics and astronomy research (more about that at <a href="http://researchspace.typepad.com/exquisite_life/2007/12/the-sound-of-si.html">Exquisite Life</a>), suggests that things may be tougher. But unless we get a full recession in the UK economy, they will not get to serious levels - I would be surprised to see early graduate unemployment climb much above 7%. <br /><br />If we do get a recession, though, this figure could double - as it did in the early 90s. That doesn't seem to be happening at the moment, though.<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/higher education" rel="tag">higher education</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/universities" rel="tag">universities</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/graduate employment" rel="tag">graduate employment</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/graduate jobs" rel="tag">graduate jobs</a>Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-14820659592288798372007-12-04T16:07:00.000+00:002007-12-05T09:46:36.095+00:00PISA againNow the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/2/0,3343,en_32252351_32236191_39718850_1_1_1_1,00.html">data is out</a> properly, <a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2221766,00.html">more</a> <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/12/04/view04b.xml">of</a> the press are writing about how we've 'plummeted' in the UK.<br /><br />Just to recap very quickly, in 2000, PISA measured 43 countries. 31 were tabulated for the science report (27 in the <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_education/PISA_2000.pdf">UK-specific report</a>.) <br /><br />In 2006, PISA assessed 57. They all appear in the data. (And the UK comes third in terms of percentage of kids with the highest level of science skill, which is nice - behind New Zealand and Finland).<br /><br />How can we 'plummet' when the tables are completely different?<br /><br />I'll make that point again. <br /><br />The 2006 data on science attainment contains <strong>at least 26</strong> extra countries. <br /><br />There are some interesting points about science education in the <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/16/30/39722183.pdf">UK-specific report</a> (warning - pdf). Firstly, the UK has a lower than average proportion of 15 year olds with immigrant backgrounds(8.6%, opposed to an OECD average of 9.3%), but that they are more interested in science than are their native peers.<br /><br />Also, the OECD notes that socio-economic differences account for a higher degree of differences between school performances than the OECD average - 8.6% of the difference between schools is directly related to the backgrounds of the student body as opposed 7.2% on average across the OECD. This is a concern.<br /><br />We have lower than average students at the bottom end of science knowledge and higher than average at the top, but the OECD feels we could certainly improve - and I think that's an uncontroversial statement.<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/higher education" rel="tag">higher education</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/universities" rel="tag">universities</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/OECD" rel="tag">OECD</a><br /><br /><em>edited substantially at 17:30 on 4/12/07 to take account of new published information. Too quick with the first version!</em>Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-51805655848390120942007-11-30T15:36:00.000+00:002007-11-30T16:45:24.222+00:00Our Kids Are Terrible At Science All Of A SuddenThere is <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/incoming/article3210186.ece">fun</a> to be had today with <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7119511.stm">news</a> that our children have 'plummeted' down an OECD league table of science comprehension.<br /><br />This has been sparked by <a href="http://www.oecd.org/document/60/0,3343,en_2649_201185_39700732_1_1_1_1,00.html">this press release</a>.<br /><br />The <a href="http://www.oecd.org/pages/0,3417,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html">Programme for International Student Assessment</a>, (PISA) project started in 2000, and attempts to compare the attainment of students across a range of subjects. This story concerns the science assessment.<br /><br />And this is where it gets interesting. Because the data isn't out yet, and nor is the methodology. The Indie seems to have written its story based on the press release which contains partial data and which was prompted by the early leaking of results by a Spanish newspaper (Spain has fared very badly in the comparison).<br /><br />What we do know, because the OECD have said so, is that the methodology has changed between 2003 and 2006, and so the data is no longer comparable. And the UK wasn't properly included last time as our data was <a href="http://www.pisa.oecd.org/dataoecd/58/58/33918060.pdf">not actually good enough quality to compare properly</a> (see page 293 - 23rd page of this pdf). <br /><br />Anyway, here is a <a href="http://pisacountry.acer.edu.au/">rather nice link</a> to a site that lets you play with the 2003 data. Each country gets a score going up to 600 (the lowest ranked country, Kyrgyrstan, scores 322 this time around).<br /><br />In 2003, we scored 519. Not bad (although, as we have established, the data isn't great). <br /><br />In 2006, our score has fallen, yes. All the way down to 515.<br /><br />This means that within limits of error, by an international measure, our 15 year olds are ranked somewhere between 12 and 18 in the world for science comprehension. Not awful, but could do better - that said, there are quite a few countries who have similar scores to us. In 2003, unless something odd has happened, a score of 519 placed the UK 12th.<br /><br />The reason we're being told the UK has fallen is because in 2000, <a href="http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_education/PISA_2000.pdf">we placed 4th</a>. However, the number of countries involved was significantly smaller, and several of those included subsequently have found themselves higher. In fact, we have been overtaken by three countries from 2000 - Canada, New Zealand and Australia.<br /><br />So, in brief:<br /><br />A survey for whom we have no methodological details finds that some small countries that were not examined six years ago are a bit better at teaching their young people science than we are. Also, Canada, New Zealand and Australia have improved their science education, and the UK compares extremely well internationally - although we could probably stand to improve ourselves.<br /><br />So, not really a national disaster for science education. <br /><br />Sometimes you really need to read the source material - and not a press release - to get the sense of what is really going on. That might have stopped Michael Gove saying this:<br /><br /><blockquote>"...today we plummeted down the international science league table. External audits are confirming what we have warned about.<br /><br />The government has failed to equip our children properly for the future by using tried and tested teaching methods. It has failed to keep us internationally competitive by making sure our exams are properly rigorous."</blockquote> <br /><br />Which is valid if all you have to go on are some press releases, but not if you have read the reports. <br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/higher education" rel="tag">higher education</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/universities" rel="tag">universities</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/OECD" rel="tag">OECD</a>Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-22262360851433643202007-11-22T13:46:00.000+00:002007-11-22T15:08:22.147+00:00Philosophy Graduates: employableJessica Shepherd wrote about the employability of philosophy graduates <a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2213665,00.html">in the Guardian on 20th November</a>.<br /><br />Yes, philosophy graduates are a little more likely than the average graduate to be out of work six months after graduating, but their employment prospects seem to have improved over the last few years. <br /><br />Several commentators have been academics or aspired to academia. It's important to point out that, although over 2000 first degrees in philosophy were awarded in 2006, only 95 people got doctorates in the subject (half of whom didn't reply to the DLHE survey), and of <span style="font-weight:bold;">those</span>, fewer than half went into academia on graduating (41%, thanks for asking, although from a small sample). <br /><br />So whilst it is worth looking at philosophy as an academic subject, the facts are that <span style="font-style:italic;">very few</span> philosophy graduates get into academia in the end.<br /><br />It it therefore important to highlight for students and employers alike that philosophy is a flexible and useful subject fit for a whole range of occupations, since almost all philosophy graduates in a given year will have to go out and get a job outside of an academic environment. Fortunately, Jessica's article seems to have started getting the word out. <br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/higher education" rel="tag">higher education</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/universities" rel="tag">universities</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/graduate employment" rel="tag">graduate employment</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/philosophy" rel="tag">philosophy</a><br /><br />edited 15:07 to remove irrelevant boastingCharlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-5320873648903984042007-11-06T09:38:00.000+00:002007-11-06T11:25:46.388+00:00HESA release graduate employment figuresToday saw the <a href="http://www.hesa.ac.uk/index.php/content/view/888/161/">first findings</a> of HESA's much-anticipated longitudinal study of graduates from the 2002/3 leaving cohort.<br /><br />Before I go on to comment on Press reaction, here are some pieces: <a href="http://education.guardian.co.uk/higher/news/story/0,,2205791,00.html">Polly Curtis in the Guardian</a>, <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/11/06/ngraduates106.xml">Graeme Paton in the Telegraph</a>, <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article2813676.ece">Nicola Woolcock in the Times</a>. And here's <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7079742.stm">the BBC</a> on the research. Note the different tone.<br /><br />Let's compare the figures from the initial destinations survey in 2002/3, which looked at graduates six months after they left university, with these new figures.<br /><br />But first, <strong>a very important point</strong>. These new figures examine graduates <strong>at all levels.</strong> Not just first degrees.<br /><br />The level of <strong>full-time, paid work </strong>has gone <strong>up</strong> from <strong>57% to 74%</strong>.<br /><br /><strong>Part time employment</strong> has <strong>dropped from 8% to 6%</strong>.<br /><br />The level of those who are both <strong>working and studying</strong> (these are usually doing training courses as part of work - accountancy exams are an example) has <strong>remained the same at 9%</strong> - some hardy souls are working full time and studying.<br /><br />The proportion in <strong>further study</strong> has <strong>fallen from 11% to 5%</strong>. Not surprising - those who took teaching courses or Masters study on first graduating will have finished long before - but many of those who took PhDs will still be writing up.<br /><br /><strong>The unemployment rate fell from 5% to 2%</strong>, which is, to be honest, a surprisingly large fall.<br /><br />This seems quite good news.<br /><br />What isn't so great is the news that 80%, as opposed to 71%, of employed graduates were in jobs classified as 'graduate' occupations. Bearing in mind that three years have passed, I would have hoped more would move into graduate level work. <a href="http://www.hecsu.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Research_reports/Seven_years_on/p!eeXLbmk">Elias and Purcell's work on graduate careers</a> suggested that the level of non-graduate employment for a first degree cohort stabilised at about 10% somewhere between 3 and 4 years after graduating. Maybe things have changed.<br />Of course, 'non-graduate' does not mean 'bad' or even 'badly paid'. Some graduates choose to take non-graduate jobs for many reasons. But this small increase is still disappointing. Of course, having no previous work to use as a comparison, either in the UK or outside it, we don't know whether this is a good performance or a bad one.<br /><br />Overall, 14% of graduates were not satisfied with their career - this is, remember, just three and a half years into what is hopefully going to be a long career for many of them. Three and a half years after I graduated, I was pretty hacked off. Now, I am quite serene, experience and perspective having made me realise the value of what I have learnt.<br /><br />Salaries sat at a median of £23,000, a little below the current median for the UK - not too bad when you consider most of the cohort are in their mid-20s, but probably less than many expected. A degree is a qualification for the long-term, though. It has never been a guarantee of riches.<br /><br />What is interesting about the press coverage, with the exception of the BBC, is how extremely negative it is. The Times and the Telegraph fail to mention unemployment at all - both focussing on salaries and levels of non-graduate employment. The Guardian concentrates on the pay gap between men and women, generalising about what is an extremely complex (although real) topic. All three papers mention further study as if it were a less desirable outcome than working, with the Telegraph producing a statistic not covered by the press release about graduates doing further study because they couldn't get a suitable job that screams 'out of context'. <br />(Here's the <a href="http://www.hesa.ac.uk/dox/dlhe_longitudinal/HESA_Longitudinal_DLHE_long_questionnaire.pdf">questionnaire</a> - the Telegraph's factoid comes from Q24, a multiple choice question where a respondent can tick numerous boxes).<br /><br />It is depressing, although not unexpected, that the press should be so keen to be so negative about a very significant piece of work, and it hinders attempts to have a sensible public discussion of the implications. <br /><br />Fortunately, politicians have been much more measured. Bill Rammell quoted some stats, whilst David Willetts, to my mind, summed up the real value of this work,<br /><br /><blockquote>These statistics demonstrate just how varied experiences of higher education can be. These sorts of employability statistics are just some of the facts that students need to know when choosing what courses they want to study, along with how the course will be structured, how many contact hours they'll get and who will be teaching them. Students have a right to know what sort of experience they will be getting at university and beyond</blockquote><br /><br />The real significance of this work is that it is a very systematic and painstaking study of a section of graduate careers that we know very little about. We don't know enough about graduate careers to use this data to score political points, and instead should use it as a basis for future comparisons. There's a lot of very interesting insight yet to come from this research, and I'm looking forward to it.<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/higher education" rel="tag">higher education</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/universities" rel="tag">universities</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/graduate employment" rel="tag">graduate employment</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/graduate salaries" rel="tag">graduate salaries</a>Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8235457.post-13568662299705852412007-11-02T15:31:00.000+00:002007-11-06T11:26:07.435+00:00The IPOD GenerationI am an idle researcher. Apologies to my reader for not getting around to the Sainsbury Review analysis promised earlier (yet). Blimey, it's a bit of a monster job, but I will limp through it, eventually.<br /><br />Let's, instead, have a small roundup.<br /><br />First, <a href="http://www.reform.co.uk/filestore/pdf/071025%20Class%20of%202007%20Inaction%20sinks%20the%20IPOD%20generation.pdf">Reform's exciting report</a> on the "IPOD generation" - 18-34 year olds who are Insecure, Pressurised, Overtaxed and Debt-Ridden, and how convenient that these characteristics form an easily recognised acronym! Now, having spent most of my life in that age group and only (relatively) recently left it, I don't necessarily disagree with many of the findings of the report. But as far as graduates go, the authors have used incorrect figures for graduate earnings (using the annual NatWest survey which takes a biased sample, and has methodological flaws) to pretend that graduate salaries fell between 2005 and 2006. They did not, and the only way that they could make this statement was to choose the only survey out of several that showed it.<br /><br />They also play a slightly dicey rhetorical trick by placing rising student numbers next to figures for rising youth unemployment - leading readers to obvious conclusions - without admitting that in the time period they are covering, early graduate unemployment (ie six months after graduation) has fallen - from 7.6% in 1997 to 6.0% in 2006.<br /><br />In short, this report and <a href="http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2767109.ece">the news coverage</a> around it needs to be read very carefully because it could mislead people.<br /><br />Also in the news is <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/cp231.pdf">this piece</a> from <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/staff/person.asp?id=971">Stephen Machin</a> and <a href="http://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/staff/person.asp?id=743">Sandra McNally</a> of the LSE. It is really a digest from <a href="http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/55/31/38006954.pdf">this piece</a> (warning, pdf) they wrote earlier in the year for the OECD, and it is a review of the evidence of the effects of tertiary education on economic and social objectives. Machin and McNally show that the evidence available points to the need to increase higher education participation in the UK, that we are not over-supplied with graduates as a whole and that returns to study to higher education are real, significant and not being eroded to any great extent. <br /><br />It hasn't had a lot of coverage. Shame.<br /><br />Technorati tags: <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/higher education" rel="tag">higher education</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/universities" rel="tag">universities</a>, <a href="http://technorati.com/tag/graduate employment" rel="tag">graduate employment</a>Charlie Ballhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14536519147243917727noreply@blogger.com0